Income Tax Appeal v. M/S. Vishinda Diamonds

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1814 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19: Appellant. VersusM/s. Vishinda Diamonds : Respondent Mr. A R Malhotra a/w Mr. N A Kazi for the Appellant.Mr. Subhash Shetty for the Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 27, 2019. P.C.: 1This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), challenges the order dated 29/01/2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short). This appeal relates to theAssessment Year 2009-2010 1.2Revenue has urged following two questions of law for our consideration:- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin Law, the Hon. ITAT was right in holding that “Markto Market” loss of Rs.1,62,98,847/- arising onrevaluation of forward exchange contract on theclosing date of the previous year is not a notional lossand therefore allowable? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin Law, the Hon. ITAT was right in not takingcognizance of non-uniformity of rates of revaluationadopted for various debtors and also not following theAS-11 categorical guidance on adopting closing rate ofcurrency?”in Law, the Hon. ITAT was right in not takingcognizance of non-uniformity of rates of revaluationadopted for various debtors and also not following theAS-11 categorical guidance on adopting closing rate ofcurrency?” 3Regarding Question No.(i) Mr. A R Malhotra the learned counselappearing for the Revenue in support of the Appeal has stated that this issuestands concluded against the Appellant-Revenue and in favour of theRespondent-Assessee by the decision of this Court dated 01/10/2016 inIncome Tax Appeal No.278 of 2014 in the matter of Commissioner of IncomeTax-16 Mumbai v/s. M/s. D Chetan & Co. and decision dated 11/12/2018 inIncome Tax Appeal No.843 of 2016 in the matter of Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax-19 v/s. M/s. Polar Star. 4In view of above, the question that is raised before us does notgive rise to any substantial question of law as the issue sought to be raised hereis already concluded. Hence not entertained. 5Regarding Question No.(ii) we note that it is an undisputedposition that this question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Theimpugned order of the Tribunal does not make any mention of any submissionbeing made on behalf of the Appellant – Revenue with regard to the issue sought to be raised here. Hence not entertained. 6In view of above, both the questions do not give rise to anysubstantial question of law, hence, not entertained. The Income Tax Appeal isdismissed. [ M.S.SANKLECHA,J.] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]